German POWs
But Charles....
Who would take you seriously?? A bit like Hitler reminding miscreats of human rights violations
-
Charles Bunch
- Member
- Posts: 846
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:03
- Location: USA
Re: But Charles....
>>>>>>What quotes have I invented, I thought making spurious accusations was part of the Revisionists repitoire, if you can point out one quote, I will pay you 100 dollars into an account of your choice if you don't then quite simply you are both unethical and a liar.
>>>>>You wrote: ". Perchance in response to your pedantic 'professional historians know more' I may direct your attention to Schliemann,..."
>>>>>I didn't say professional historians know more, that was your mischaracteriztation.
>>>>>You followed that little bit of dishonesty by providing a truncated quote which attempted to support this same spurious notion.
>>>>>I note you are still running from the question.
>>>>>Perhaps you'd like to tell us why you think the panel of experts assembled by Stephen Ambrose are no more trustworthy in providing the history of German POWs under American control than Mr. Tobin of the denier organization The Adelaide Insitute? Or were you just running in neutral?
>>>>I would suppose that you had noticed the difference between a sumnation of your alleged views as per your farcial example of a false quote and a actual quote, this you should be able to percieve given the energy, when it is preceeded by 'wrote', 'said' etc.
>>>Rubbish, you attempted to put a quote in my mouth, as I said.
>>>>How unfair, did I truncate your sentence,
>>>Yes you did, changing the meaning of what was said in the process.
>>>Very dishonest of you. But then you don't seem to mind.
>>>>I can see how this would upset as it highlights the word 'professional' that you appended to your 'based on facts' as if every second word that you write has no more relevance than a punctuation mark.
>>>Any person of normal intelligence would be upset since it changes the meaning from focusing on "professional historians" to "professional historians who base their opinions on facts".
>>>But as those same people can see, you've no explanation for your dishonesty.
>>>Now, perhaps you'd like to tell us why you think the panel of experts assembled by Stephen Ambrose are no more trustworthy in providing the history of German POWs under American control than Mr. Tobin of the denier organization The Adelaide Insitute?
>>>Or would you prefer to run from this statement for some reason?
>>to the rest???
>>> But then I'm not surprised, being unable to comprehend anything actually difficult to rebut is a standard debating technique of the weak minded, where perchance did all my meticulous references to your tenuous hold on the truth go, through one ear and out the other?
>>This must account for your timidity in addressing the question I've been asking you for a number of posts now.
> >>And for the 'words in your mouth' why, I assumed you would be pleased to be able to utter something intelligent for a change.
>>Look, you have fabricated a quote, putting words in my mouth I did not say, and distorted a sentence to specifically make it appear to have supported a spurious notion of yours. Whether your motives are lack of intelligence I'm not prepared to say.
>>What I am prepared to say is that you seem curiously ashamed of the comment you made regarding the historian Ambrose and the Adelaide Institute. Why is that?
>>Now, perhaps you'd like to tell us why you think the panel of experts assembled by Stephen Ambrose are no more trustworthy in providing the history of German POWs under American control than Mr. Tobin of the denier organization The Adelaide Insitute?
>>Conversely, you could continue with your feckless commentary, confirming that you really have nothing worthwhile to say.
>Have at look at this:
No.
>See Charles, above are lies, deceit, and just plain fabrication, if this seems childish its because you have the integrity of a toddler, in fact if I can convince my five year old nephew to have a shot, there is no firm bet that he won't get it over you.
Coming from a person who fabricates quotes and shamelessly distorts others by deliberately leaving off the end of a sentence, your words are as hollow as your arguments.
>>Now, perhaps you'd like to tell us why you think the panel of experts assembled by Stephen Ambrose are no more trustworthy in providing the history of German POWs under American control than Mr. Tobin of the denier organization The Adelaide Insitute?
>>>I'm not surprised at all your considered answer to evidence of your own perfidity is the eloquent 'No', is the 'does not compute' message flashing up again, don't worry, just shut down and reboot, I'm sure there are no essential files existent that woud be lost in the process.
>>Of course the perfidity is yours, Julian!!
>>I'm not surprised at your fear of answering a question of much longer standing than yours!!
>>Perhaps you'd like to tell us why your afraid to defend the statements you've made.
>>Now, perhaps you'd like to tell us why you think the panel of experts assembled by Stephen Ambrose are no more trustworthy in providing the history of German POWs under American control than Mr. Tobin of the denier organization The Adelaide Insitute?
>>While you're at it, please explain why you fabricated a quote in my name and truncated a sentence which resulted in a false communication of my opinion.
>>I suppose you hope readers are not paying attention to your avoidance of your statements, but rest assured I'm here to remind them!!
>Who would take you seriously??
Why, anyone reading reading the thread, of course!!
Now, perhaps you'd like to tell us why you think the panel of experts assembled by Stephen Ambrose are no more trustworthy in providing the history of German POWs under American control than Mr. Tobin of the denier organization The Adelaide Insitute?
Aren't you getting tired of avoiding your comment?
>>>>>You wrote: ". Perchance in response to your pedantic 'professional historians know more' I may direct your attention to Schliemann,..."
>>>>>I didn't say professional historians know more, that was your mischaracteriztation.
>>>>>You followed that little bit of dishonesty by providing a truncated quote which attempted to support this same spurious notion.
>>>>>I note you are still running from the question.
>>>>>Perhaps you'd like to tell us why you think the panel of experts assembled by Stephen Ambrose are no more trustworthy in providing the history of German POWs under American control than Mr. Tobin of the denier organization The Adelaide Insitute? Or were you just running in neutral?
>>>>I would suppose that you had noticed the difference between a sumnation of your alleged views as per your farcial example of a false quote and a actual quote, this you should be able to percieve given the energy, when it is preceeded by 'wrote', 'said' etc.
>>>Rubbish, you attempted to put a quote in my mouth, as I said.
>>>>How unfair, did I truncate your sentence,
>>>Yes you did, changing the meaning of what was said in the process.
>>>Very dishonest of you. But then you don't seem to mind.
>>>>I can see how this would upset as it highlights the word 'professional' that you appended to your 'based on facts' as if every second word that you write has no more relevance than a punctuation mark.
>>>Any person of normal intelligence would be upset since it changes the meaning from focusing on "professional historians" to "professional historians who base their opinions on facts".
>>>But as those same people can see, you've no explanation for your dishonesty.
>>>Now, perhaps you'd like to tell us why you think the panel of experts assembled by Stephen Ambrose are no more trustworthy in providing the history of German POWs under American control than Mr. Tobin of the denier organization The Adelaide Insitute?
>>>Or would you prefer to run from this statement for some reason?
>>to the rest???
>>> But then I'm not surprised, being unable to comprehend anything actually difficult to rebut is a standard debating technique of the weak minded, where perchance did all my meticulous references to your tenuous hold on the truth go, through one ear and out the other?
>>This must account for your timidity in addressing the question I've been asking you for a number of posts now.
> >>And for the 'words in your mouth' why, I assumed you would be pleased to be able to utter something intelligent for a change.
>>Look, you have fabricated a quote, putting words in my mouth I did not say, and distorted a sentence to specifically make it appear to have supported a spurious notion of yours. Whether your motives are lack of intelligence I'm not prepared to say.
>>What I am prepared to say is that you seem curiously ashamed of the comment you made regarding the historian Ambrose and the Adelaide Institute. Why is that?
>>Now, perhaps you'd like to tell us why you think the panel of experts assembled by Stephen Ambrose are no more trustworthy in providing the history of German POWs under American control than Mr. Tobin of the denier organization The Adelaide Insitute?
>>Conversely, you could continue with your feckless commentary, confirming that you really have nothing worthwhile to say.
>Have at look at this:
No.
>See Charles, above are lies, deceit, and just plain fabrication, if this seems childish its because you have the integrity of a toddler, in fact if I can convince my five year old nephew to have a shot, there is no firm bet that he won't get it over you.
Coming from a person who fabricates quotes and shamelessly distorts others by deliberately leaving off the end of a sentence, your words are as hollow as your arguments.
>>Now, perhaps you'd like to tell us why you think the panel of experts assembled by Stephen Ambrose are no more trustworthy in providing the history of German POWs under American control than Mr. Tobin of the denier organization The Adelaide Insitute?
>>>I'm not surprised at all your considered answer to evidence of your own perfidity is the eloquent 'No', is the 'does not compute' message flashing up again, don't worry, just shut down and reboot, I'm sure there are no essential files existent that woud be lost in the process.
>>Of course the perfidity is yours, Julian!!
>>I'm not surprised at your fear of answering a question of much longer standing than yours!!
>>Perhaps you'd like to tell us why your afraid to defend the statements you've made.
>>Now, perhaps you'd like to tell us why you think the panel of experts assembled by Stephen Ambrose are no more trustworthy in providing the history of German POWs under American control than Mr. Tobin of the denier organization The Adelaide Insitute?
>>While you're at it, please explain why you fabricated a quote in my name and truncated a sentence which resulted in a false communication of my opinion.
>>I suppose you hope readers are not paying attention to your avoidance of your statements, but rest assured I'm here to remind them!!
>Who would take you seriously??
Why, anyone reading reading the thread, of course!!
Now, perhaps you'd like to tell us why you think the panel of experts assembled by Stephen Ambrose are no more trustworthy in providing the history of German POWs under American control than Mr. Tobin of the denier organization The Adelaide Insitute?
Aren't you getting tired of avoiding your comment?
Now that Charles...
is wallowing the depths of his own depravity, I will, though it seems bizarre, explain why accepting the opinion of the Eisenhower center or a conference convened by the said center as the last word on an issue that would destroy Eisenhower's reputation, is at best evidence of laziness and at worst stupid. It is standard practice when investigating an issue, to examine the sources from which information is obtained, and the probable bias's of such a source. The Eisenhower center is dedicated to the presevatation and extollation of the memory and history of Eisenhower, like the establishment of presidential librarys or memorials such as the MacArthur Memorial in Norfolk Virginia, the purpose and raison detre is built upon the virtue of the recepients of such honours. This is why you fail to find a Adolph Hitler Memorial Center, no matter how much some would entertain this idea. Pursuing this train of thought, if Eisenhower was deemed to be in fact a war criminal, I would assume that the Eisenhower center would cease to exist at the worst, or in the best case be forced to reevaluate much of its existing ethos, Ambrose may even be out of a job. To examine Ambrose himself as a source of information on Eisenhower supposed perfidity, it would be cogent to examine his role as head of the said center, unless Mr Ambrose is such an individual that he is able to divorce his conscience from any endeavour he undertakes, it would be reasonable to assume that his position reflects his admiration and desire to propagate the memory of Eisenhower, considering this, while as a historian his findings would undoubtedly have worth, they should never be used as the last word on any serious anaylsis of Eisenhowers reputation. To do so is to experience the 'MacArthur' syndrome whereby depending on which section of associates a biographer has approached, a disparate array of biographies will be produced, for example, the difference in tone and perception between the William Manchester Biography and the S.L Mayer one, finally there is the Geoffery Perret Biography that has analysed both sides and forms a more equitable conclusion. Now as to the a conference organised by the said center, the first conclusion to be obtained is that conferences often reflect the will and ethos of the conveners of such, in fact many such bodies set up for the purpose of investigation are subject to this condition, an apt example is a Royal Commision, considered to be a instituition enabled with the widest powers of compulsion under the law, yet in fact there have been many cases of such commisions being unduly influenced by the directives and motives of the conveners, in this case the elected government of the day. For example, at the moment there is a royal commision into corruption of the building industry, the focus of the commision has been justly condemmed by the unions as solely focussed on union involvement in the said corruption, from evidence given before the commission one would receive the impression that if the unions were subtracted from the building industry, corruption would cease, yet this is evidently untrue given the evidence of the 'bottom of the harbour tax minimisation crimes' perpetrated by corporations in the industry. Another example is the previously mentioned technical examination of the grounds of the Trebelinka Concentration Camp by a team headed by Richard Krege on behalf of the Adelaide Institute, Richard is qualified in such, that he posseses tertiary qualifications in the area of technical expertise that he was hired to demonstrate. Yet to accept blindly and without recourse the results of such examinations is to ignore the fact that the Adelaide Institute laid the operational reference and design of the project, as well the Adelaide Institute released the findings of said study apparently after examining the data. Now the Adelaide institute is an organisation that is again subsumed to an ethos, one that would nescitate closer and independent confirmation of information obtained by the said institute, that is, one of their fundamental raison detre's is the exposing of the 'Holocaust Hoax' thus they would have a bias in their methodology and approach to this issue.
Regards
Julian
Regards
Julian
-
Charles Bunch
- Member
- Posts: 846
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:03
- Location: USA
Re: Now that Charles...
>>>>>>What quotes have I invented, I thought making spurious accusations was part of the Revisionists repitoire, if you can point out one quote, I will pay you 100 dollars into an account of your choice if you don't then quite simply you are both unethical and a liar.
>>>>>You wrote: ". Perchance in response to your pedantic 'professional historians know more' I may direct your attention to Schliemann,..."
>>>>>I didn't say professional historians know more, that was your mischaracteriztation.
>>>>>You followed that little bit of dishonesty by providing a truncated quote which attempted to support this same spurious notion.
>>>>>I note you are still running from the question.
>>>>>Perhaps you'd like to tell us why you think the panel of experts assembled by Stephen Ambrose are no more trustworthy in providing the history of German POWs under American control than Mr. Tobin of the denier organization The Adelaide Insitute? Or were you just running in neutral?
>>>>I would suppose that you had noticed the difference between a sumnation of your alleged views as per your farcial example of a false quote and a actual quote, this you should be able to percieve given the energy, when it is preceeded by 'wrote', 'said' etc.
>>>Rubbish, you attempted to put a quote in my mouth, as I said.
>>>>How unfair, did I truncate your sentence,
>>>Yes you did, changing the meaning of what was said in the process.
>>>Very dishonest of you. But then you don't seem to mind.
>>>>I can see how this would upset as it highlights the word 'professional' that you appended to your 'based on facts' as if every second word that you write has no more relevance than a punctuation mark.
>>>Any person of normal intelligence would be upset since it changes the meaning from focusing on "professional historians" to "professional historians who base their opinions on facts".
>>>But as those same people can see, you've no explanation for your dishonesty.
>>>Now, perhaps you'd like to tell us why you think the panel of experts assembled by Stephen Ambrose are no more trustworthy in providing the history of German POWs under American control than Mr. Tobin of the denier organization The Adelaide Insitute?
>>>Or would you prefer to run from this statement for some reason?
>>to the rest???
>>> But then I'm not surprised, being unable to comprehend anything actually difficult to rebut is a standard debating technique of the weak minded, where perchance did all my meticulous references to your tenuous hold on the truth go, through one ear and out the other?
>>This must account for your timidity in addressing the question I've been asking you for a number of posts now.
> >>And for the 'words in your mouth' why, I assumed you would be pleased to be able to utter something intelligent for a change.
>>Look, you have fabricated a quote, putting words in my mouth I did not say, and distorted a sentence to specifically make it appear to have supported a spurious notion of yours. Whether your motives are lack of intelligence I'm not prepared to say.
>>What I am prepared to say is that you seem curiously ashamed of the comment you made regarding the historian Ambrose and the Adelaide Institute. Why is that?
>>Now, perhaps you'd like to tell us why you think the panel of experts assembled by Stephen Ambrose are no more trustworthy in providing the history of German POWs under American control than Mr. Tobin of the denier organization The Adelaide Insitute?
>>Conversely, you could continue with your feckless commentary, confirming that you really have nothing worthwhile to say.
>Have at look at this:
No.
>See Charles, above are lies, deceit, and just plain fabrication, if this seems childish its because you have the integrity of a toddler, in fact if I can convince my five year old nephew to have a shot, there is no firm bet that he won't get it over you.
Coming from a person who fabricates quotes and shamelessly distorts others by deliberately leaving off the end of a sentence, your words are as hollow as your arguments.
>>Now, perhaps you'd like to tell us why you think the panel of experts assembled by Stephen Ambrose are no more trustworthy in providing the history of German POWs under American control than Mr. Tobin of the denier organization The Adelaide Insitute?
>>>I'm not surprised at all your considered answer to evidence of your own perfidity is the eloquent 'No', is the 'does not compute' message flashing up again, don't worry, just shut down and reboot, I'm sure there are no essential files existent that woud be lost in the process.
>>Of course the perfidity is yours, Julian!!
>>I'm not surprised at your fear of answering a question of much longer standing than yours!!
>>Perhaps you'd like to tell us why your afraid to defend the statements you've made.
>>Now, perhaps you'd like to tell us why you think the panel of experts assembled by Stephen Ambrose are no more trustworthy in providing the history of German POWs under American control than Mr. Tobin of the denier organization The Adelaide Insitute?
>>While you're at it, please explain why you fabricated a quote in my name and truncated a sentence which resulted in a false communication of my opinion.
>>I suppose you hope readers are not paying attention to your avoidance of your statements, but rest assured I'm here to remind them!!
>>>Who would take you seriously??
>>Why, anyone reading reading the thread, of course!!
>>Now, perhaps you'd like to tell us why you think the panel of experts assembled by Stephen Ambrose are no more trustworthy in providing the history of German POWs under American control than Mr. Tobin of the denier organization The Adelaide Insitute?
>>Aren't you getting tired of avoiding your comment?
>explain why accepting the opinion of the Eisenhower center or a conference convened by the said center as the last word on an issue that would destroy Eisenhower's reputation,
No one said it was the last word. The conference presented conclusions based on evidence, none of which you have acknowledged, let alonge contested. Why is that?
>is at best evidence of laziness and at worst stupid.
Why is it lazy or stupid to point out evidence with respect to the issue at hand, versus your empty claims?
>It is standard practice when investigating an issue, to examine the sources from which information is obtained, and the probable bias's of such a source.
Yes it is. And what we are dealing with is the Adelaide Institue, which has no source of information with respect to the issue under consideration, and historians on the other hand, who have no demonstrated bias and only a desire to understand the facts of the matter.
>The Eisenhower center is dedicated to the presevatation and extollation of the memory and history of Eisenhower, like the establishment of presidential librarys or memorials such as the MacArthur Memorial in Norfolk Virginia, the purpose and raison detre is built upon the virtue of the recepients of such honours.
No, the Eisenhower Institute is dedicated to the preservation of the history of Eisenhower in his conduct as an historical figure. If one wishes to challenge the views of the institute, one must present evidence, not merely make empty claims.
>This is why you fail to find a Adolph Hitler Memorial Center,
No, you fail to find an Adolph Hitler center because centers of this sort are not based on mass murderers.
(Delete remainder of nonsense which has no connection to historical fact, or unstanding)
Now, perhaps you'd like to tell us why you think the panel of experts assembled by Stephen Ambrose are no more trustworthy in providing the history of German POWs under American control than Mr. Tobin of the denier organization The Adelaide Insitute?
Or would you prefer to run from this statement for some reason?
>>>>>You wrote: ". Perchance in response to your pedantic 'professional historians know more' I may direct your attention to Schliemann,..."
>>>>>I didn't say professional historians know more, that was your mischaracteriztation.
>>>>>You followed that little bit of dishonesty by providing a truncated quote which attempted to support this same spurious notion.
>>>>>I note you are still running from the question.
>>>>>Perhaps you'd like to tell us why you think the panel of experts assembled by Stephen Ambrose are no more trustworthy in providing the history of German POWs under American control than Mr. Tobin of the denier organization The Adelaide Insitute? Or were you just running in neutral?
>>>>I would suppose that you had noticed the difference between a sumnation of your alleged views as per your farcial example of a false quote and a actual quote, this you should be able to percieve given the energy, when it is preceeded by 'wrote', 'said' etc.
>>>Rubbish, you attempted to put a quote in my mouth, as I said.
>>>>How unfair, did I truncate your sentence,
>>>Yes you did, changing the meaning of what was said in the process.
>>>Very dishonest of you. But then you don't seem to mind.
>>>>I can see how this would upset as it highlights the word 'professional' that you appended to your 'based on facts' as if every second word that you write has no more relevance than a punctuation mark.
>>>Any person of normal intelligence would be upset since it changes the meaning from focusing on "professional historians" to "professional historians who base their opinions on facts".
>>>But as those same people can see, you've no explanation for your dishonesty.
>>>Now, perhaps you'd like to tell us why you think the panel of experts assembled by Stephen Ambrose are no more trustworthy in providing the history of German POWs under American control than Mr. Tobin of the denier organization The Adelaide Insitute?
>>>Or would you prefer to run from this statement for some reason?
>>to the rest???
>>> But then I'm not surprised, being unable to comprehend anything actually difficult to rebut is a standard debating technique of the weak minded, where perchance did all my meticulous references to your tenuous hold on the truth go, through one ear and out the other?
>>This must account for your timidity in addressing the question I've been asking you for a number of posts now.
> >>And for the 'words in your mouth' why, I assumed you would be pleased to be able to utter something intelligent for a change.
>>Look, you have fabricated a quote, putting words in my mouth I did not say, and distorted a sentence to specifically make it appear to have supported a spurious notion of yours. Whether your motives are lack of intelligence I'm not prepared to say.
>>What I am prepared to say is that you seem curiously ashamed of the comment you made regarding the historian Ambrose and the Adelaide Institute. Why is that?
>>Now, perhaps you'd like to tell us why you think the panel of experts assembled by Stephen Ambrose are no more trustworthy in providing the history of German POWs under American control than Mr. Tobin of the denier organization The Adelaide Insitute?
>>Conversely, you could continue with your feckless commentary, confirming that you really have nothing worthwhile to say.
>Have at look at this:
No.
>See Charles, above are lies, deceit, and just plain fabrication, if this seems childish its because you have the integrity of a toddler, in fact if I can convince my five year old nephew to have a shot, there is no firm bet that he won't get it over you.
Coming from a person who fabricates quotes and shamelessly distorts others by deliberately leaving off the end of a sentence, your words are as hollow as your arguments.
>>Now, perhaps you'd like to tell us why you think the panel of experts assembled by Stephen Ambrose are no more trustworthy in providing the history of German POWs under American control than Mr. Tobin of the denier organization The Adelaide Insitute?
>>>I'm not surprised at all your considered answer to evidence of your own perfidity is the eloquent 'No', is the 'does not compute' message flashing up again, don't worry, just shut down and reboot, I'm sure there are no essential files existent that woud be lost in the process.
>>Of course the perfidity is yours, Julian!!
>>I'm not surprised at your fear of answering a question of much longer standing than yours!!
>>Perhaps you'd like to tell us why your afraid to defend the statements you've made.
>>Now, perhaps you'd like to tell us why you think the panel of experts assembled by Stephen Ambrose are no more trustworthy in providing the history of German POWs under American control than Mr. Tobin of the denier organization The Adelaide Insitute?
>>While you're at it, please explain why you fabricated a quote in my name and truncated a sentence which resulted in a false communication of my opinion.
>>I suppose you hope readers are not paying attention to your avoidance of your statements, but rest assured I'm here to remind them!!
>>>Who would take you seriously??
>>Why, anyone reading reading the thread, of course!!
>>Now, perhaps you'd like to tell us why you think the panel of experts assembled by Stephen Ambrose are no more trustworthy in providing the history of German POWs under American control than Mr. Tobin of the denier organization The Adelaide Insitute?
>>Aren't you getting tired of avoiding your comment?
>explain why accepting the opinion of the Eisenhower center or a conference convened by the said center as the last word on an issue that would destroy Eisenhower's reputation,
No one said it was the last word. The conference presented conclusions based on evidence, none of which you have acknowledged, let alonge contested. Why is that?
>is at best evidence of laziness and at worst stupid.
Why is it lazy or stupid to point out evidence with respect to the issue at hand, versus your empty claims?
>It is standard practice when investigating an issue, to examine the sources from which information is obtained, and the probable bias's of such a source.
Yes it is. And what we are dealing with is the Adelaide Institue, which has no source of information with respect to the issue under consideration, and historians on the other hand, who have no demonstrated bias and only a desire to understand the facts of the matter.
>The Eisenhower center is dedicated to the presevatation and extollation of the memory and history of Eisenhower, like the establishment of presidential librarys or memorials such as the MacArthur Memorial in Norfolk Virginia, the purpose and raison detre is built upon the virtue of the recepients of such honours.
No, the Eisenhower Institute is dedicated to the preservation of the history of Eisenhower in his conduct as an historical figure. If one wishes to challenge the views of the institute, one must present evidence, not merely make empty claims.
>This is why you fail to find a Adolph Hitler Memorial Center,
No, you fail to find an Adolph Hitler center because centers of this sort are not based on mass murderers.
(Delete remainder of nonsense which has no connection to historical fact, or unstanding)
Now, perhaps you'd like to tell us why you think the panel of experts assembled by Stephen Ambrose are no more trustworthy in providing the history of German POWs under American control than Mr. Tobin of the denier organization The Adelaide Insitute?
Or would you prefer to run from this statement for some reason?
ho hum
Hey Charles whats 'unstanding' , and is it a question or a 'statement' you are writing. Seek professional help before it is too late, having to deal with the mentally ill is something that is beyond the realm of this bulletin board. And hey Charlie boy, I not surprised that this mister tobin is a 'denier', after all you call vitually everyone a liar, so one more to the list eh Charles , but here let me assist you, heres you're standard rely for any given situation
'Or would you prefer to run from this statement for some reason?
so chump ever had an original thought??
Cheers
Julian
'Or would you prefer to run from this statement for some reason?
so chump ever had an original thought??
Cheers
Julian
Re: SS Graves? But what about Buchenwald!
<<It would be out of my specific area of interest to do so unless I located secondary sources for you. But my point is that the regime was declared criminal and treatment was meted out to German POWs accordingly, especially after no Allied POWs were any longer held.>>Scott Smith wrote:I wonder if Smith or someone else could provide such statistics, so that we may see to what extent they support Smith’s contentions.
Were most German POW's treated as prisoners of war or "disarmed enemy forces", or were they treated as criminals? As Smith is not able or willing to provide figures, I will do that myself.
<<That "criminal" legacy is not easy to shake. It is, in fact, reinforced by Hollywood and, as I have pointed out many times before, the modern-day Germans are so desperate that the rest of us do not see them as stereotypical Nazis that they abuse their own veterans, especially the SS, IMHO.>>
Smith has indeed often demonstrated to what extent his notion of modern Germany amounts to nothing other than "Revisionist" superstitions. Facing up to the Nazis' crimes, in which both the SS and the Wehrmacht as institutions were involved, is not the same as abusing the majority of war veterans who had nothing to do with such crimes. This poster's aversion to said crimes doesn't keep him from honoring a war veteran of his own family, for instance. Have a look:
Interesting Revisionist Work
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumfr ... =166.topic
A German soldier
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumth ... 3772.topic
<<The Bitburg saga in 1985 comes to mind. Now that the Cold War is over, an American President honoring German WWII war-dead would be unthinkable. Even then, Reagan had to endure a long, sad lecture from Elie Wiesel, and the White House press corps emphatically stressed that there were only a few SS in the cemetery, and these were on the other side. Now, there's a "moral equivalency" for you. :roll: :roll:>>
An inadequate example, I would say. Elie Wiesel is not German and doesn't speak for Germany either, as far as I know.
-
Scott Smith
- Member
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
- Location: Arizona
- Contact:
Mr. Wiesel's Zone of Hate...
Medorjurgen wrote:
You see, the Germans don't want anybody thinking that they're Nazis. No, not by any means.
:roll: :roll:
I should hope not. But unfortunately when he and his compadres bleat the word "jump," the Bundestablishment says "Jawohl! How high?"Elie Wiesel is not German and doesn't speak for Germany either, as far as I know.
You see, the Germans don't want anybody thinking that they're Nazis. No, not by any means.
:roll: :roll:
Re: Mr. Wiesel's Zone of Hate...
1. Scott Smith or how twenty years of reading the “Journal of Historical Review” can make a complete moron out of you. German chancellor Helmut Kohl doesn’t seem to have been too impressed by Mr. Wiesel. He accompanied Reagan to Bitsburg with all honors, if I well remember. And while many of my fellow students at the time considered that outrageous – more because they disliked Reagan on account of his having placed additional nuclear missiles on German territory than for any other reason – the conservative German press applauded this gesture.Scott Smith wrote:Medorjurgen wrote:
I should hope not. But unfortunately when he and his compadres bleat the word "jump," the Bundestablishment says "Jawohl! How high?"Elie Wiesel is not German and doesn't speak for Germany either, as far as I know.
You see, the Germans don't want anybody thinking that they're Nazis. No, not by any means.
:roll: :roll:
2. Germans no longer have to worry about anyone seeing them as Nazis. It takes no more than a look at a discussion forum nowadays to see that Nazi insanity is an international phenomenon.
-
Scott Smith
- Member
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
- Location: Arizona
- Contact:
In the Zone (of Hate)
Medorjurgen wrote:
Uncle Adolf is even now motoring down the Autobahn like a bat out of hell to reclaim his rightful place as Führer.
:twisted: :twisted:
CLICK!
Good for him! I recall reading in the papers at the time how Herr Kohl made much of the fact that as a Wehrmacht boy he was thankful that he had not participated in any horror. I guess wartime horror was only experienced by Mr. Wiesel's folks.German chancellor Helmut Kohl doesn't seem to have been too impressed by Mr. Wiesel.
Once the Bundestablishment repeals its Thoughtcrimes laws then perhaps I will believe that.Germans no longer have to worry about anyone seeing them as Nazis.
My Gawd! They're everywhere!It takes no more than a look at a discussion forum nowadays to see that Nazi insanity is an international phenomenon.
Uncle Adolf is even now motoring down the Autobahn like a bat out of hell to reclaim his rightful place as Führer.
:twisted: :twisted:
CLICK!
++German chancellor Helmut Kohl doesn't seem to have been too impressed by Mr. Wiesel.++
<<Good for him! I recall reading in the papers at the time how Herr Kohl made much of the fact that as a Wehrmacht boy he was thankful that he had not participated in any horror. I guess wartime horror was only experienced by Mr. Wiesel's folks.>>
No, the kind of horror that Kohl was talking about, which had little if anything to do with war, was also experienced by Soviet prisoners of war and civilians, ethnic Poles, Serbs and Croats, Gypsies and mental patients, among others.
++Germans no longer have to worry about anyone seeing them as Nazis.++
<<Once the Bundestablishment repeals its Thoughtcrimes laws then perhaps I will believe that.>>
Why, the Austrians, French, Dutch, Swedes, Swiss, Australians and Canadians must then be worried as hell about being seen as Nazis, because the governments of all these countries apply laws against hate speech similar to those of the Federal Republic of Germany. Could it be that the motivation behind such laws is concern about disturbances of public order and inter-ethnic violence that might result from the preaching of extremist propaganda to discontented segments of the population, rather than anything else?
++It takes no more than a look at a discussion forum nowadays to see that Nazi insanity is an international phenomenon.++
<<My Gawd! They're everywhere!>>
They always were. National Socialism happened to occur in Germany, but it could have occurred in any other country under similar conditions. Right now there are probably more Nazis in Arizona and California together than in the whole of Germany. Do you master the lyrics of the Horst Wessel Lied in the meantime, old pal?
<<Good for him! I recall reading in the papers at the time how Herr Kohl made much of the fact that as a Wehrmacht boy he was thankful that he had not participated in any horror. I guess wartime horror was only experienced by Mr. Wiesel's folks.>>
No, the kind of horror that Kohl was talking about, which had little if anything to do with war, was also experienced by Soviet prisoners of war and civilians, ethnic Poles, Serbs and Croats, Gypsies and mental patients, among others.
++Germans no longer have to worry about anyone seeing them as Nazis.++
<<Once the Bundestablishment repeals its Thoughtcrimes laws then perhaps I will believe that.>>
Why, the Austrians, French, Dutch, Swedes, Swiss, Australians and Canadians must then be worried as hell about being seen as Nazis, because the governments of all these countries apply laws against hate speech similar to those of the Federal Republic of Germany. Could it be that the motivation behind such laws is concern about disturbances of public order and inter-ethnic violence that might result from the preaching of extremist propaganda to discontented segments of the population, rather than anything else?
++It takes no more than a look at a discussion forum nowadays to see that Nazi insanity is an international phenomenon.++
<<My Gawd! They're everywhere!>>
They always were. National Socialism happened to occur in Germany, but it could have occurred in any other country under similar conditions. Right now there are probably more Nazis in Arizona and California together than in the whole of Germany. Do you master the lyrics of the Horst Wessel Lied in the meantime, old pal?
-
Scott Smith
- Member
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
- Location: Arizona
- Contact:
Nazis, Nazis, Everywhere.
I don't see how it could have NOT had anything to do with the war.medorjurgen wrote:[German chancellor Helmut Kohl disavows the horror while a Wehrmacht boy.]
<<No, the kind of horror that Kohl was talking about, which had little if anything to do with war, was also experienced by Soviet prisoners of war and civilians, ethnic Poles, Serbs and Croats, Gypsies and mental patients, among others.>>
Apparently so. That's why concentration camp propaganda is still being given for brainwashing in the schools.<<Germans no longer have to worry about anyone seeing them as Nazis.>>
++Once the Bundestablishment repeals its Thoughtcrimes laws then perhaps I will believe that.++
<<Why, the Austrians, French, Dutch, Swedes, Swiss, Australians and Canadians must then be worried as hell about being seen as Nazis, because the governments of all these countries apply laws against hate speech similar to those of the Federal Republic of Germany.>>
Governments exist for public safety or security reasons. That's what they're for. Which is not to say that everything they do is legitimate by any means.Could it be that the motivation behind such laws is concern about disturbances of public order and inter-ethnic violence that might result from the preaching of extremist propaganda to discontented segments of the population, rather than anything else?
Evil in a state of being, I guess. LOL.[Nazis are everywhere!]
<<They always were.>>
I find it hard to believe that the conditions would ever be the same. Defeat. Dismemberment. War Guilt. Yada yada yada. If so, we'll whip 'em good, we will! We won't be kind-hearted and soft like you Germans. That's why we'll win.National Socialism happened to occur in Germany, but it could have occurred in any other country under similar conditions. Right now there are probably more Nazis in Arizona and California together than in the whole of Germany.>>
:twisted: :twisted:
I'm waiting for you to master the similarly-stirring refrains of the Internationale.Do you master the lyrics of the Horst Wessel Lied in the meantime, old pal?
++[German chancellor Helmut Kohl disavows the horror while a Wehrmacht boy.]
No, the kind of horror that Kohl was talking about, which had little if anything to do with war, was also experienced by Soviet prisoners of war and civilians, ethnic Poles, Serbs and Croats, Gypsies and mental patients, among others.++
<<I don't see how it could have NOT had anything to do with the war.>>
Well, it did have something to do with the war, as Goebbels aptly pointed out in his diary entry on 27 March 1942:
Source of quote:
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/goe ... 942-mar-27
Emphasis is mine.
++Germans no longer have to worry about anyone seeing them as Nazis.++
--Once the Bundestablishment repeals its Thoughtcrimes laws then perhaps I will believe that.--
++Why, the Austrians, French, Dutch, Swedes, Swiss, Australians and Canadians must then be worried as hell about being seen as Nazis, because the governments of all these countries apply laws against hate speech similar to those of the Federal Republic of Germany.++
<<Apparently so. That's why concentration camp propaganda is still being given for brainwashing in the schools.>>
Brainwashing takes propaganda, as Smith pointed out. The Nazi concentration camps, to Smith’s great annoyance, are not propaganda but historical facts.
++Could it be that the motivation behind such laws is concern about disturbances of public order and inter-ethnic violence that might result from the preaching of extremist propaganda to discontented segments of the population, rather than anything else?++
<<Governments exist for public safety or security reasons. That's what they're for. Which is not to say that everything they do is legitimate by any means.>>
I didn’t say that laws against hate speech are legitimate. I consider them to be not only wrong, but also stupid. But that doesn’t change the fact that the motivations behind them are not what Smith would like them to be.
++[Nazis are everywhere!]
They always were.++
<<Evil in a state of being, I guess. LOL.>>
I don’t believe in evil. But I know that the world is full of irrational imbecility.
++National Socialism happened to occur in Germany, but it could have occurred in any other country under similar conditions. Right now there are probably more Nazis in Arizona and California together than in the whole of Germany.++
<<I find it hard to believe that the conditions would ever be the same.>>
Neither do I.
<<Defeat.>>
Agree.
<<Dismemberment.>>
Not exactly.
<<War Guilt.>>
Agree.
<<Yada yada yada.>>
What was that?
<<If so, we'll whip 'em good, we will! We won't be kind-hearted and soft like you Germans. That's why we'll win.>>
In the First World War, the Germans were no more and no less “kind-hearted and soft” than anybody else except Turkey. In the Second World War, on the other hand, the Nazis trumped all other belligerents in terms of cruelty, mayhem and massacre. And still they didn’t win …
++Do you master the lyrics of the Horst Wessel Lied in the meantime, old pal?++
<<I'm waiting for you to master the similarly-stirring refrains of the Internationale.>>
I can already sing it in Portuguese, thanks to the website Tovarich once pointed me to. Not that I particularly like the commies, but their music is definitely superior to that of Smith’s friends.
No, the kind of horror that Kohl was talking about, which had little if anything to do with war, was also experienced by Soviet prisoners of war and civilians, ethnic Poles, Serbs and Croats, Gypsies and mental patients, among others.++
<<I don't see how it could have NOT had anything to do with the war.>>
Well, it did have something to do with the war, as Goebbels aptly pointed out in his diary entry on 27 March 1942:
A judgment is being visited upon the Jews that, while barbaric, is fully deserved by them. The prophesy which the Fuehrer made about them for having brought on a new world war is beginning to come true in a most terrible manner. One must not be sentimental in these matters. If we did not fight the Jews, they would destroy us. It's a life-and-death struggle between the Aryan race and the Jewish bacillus. No other government and no other regime would have the strength for such a global solution of this question. Here, too, the Fuehrer is the undismayed champion of a radical solution necessitated by conditions and therefore inexorable. Fortunately a whole series of possibilities presents itself for us in wartime that would be denied us in peacetime. We shall have to profit by this.
Source of quote:
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/goe ... 942-mar-27
Emphasis is mine.
++Germans no longer have to worry about anyone seeing them as Nazis.++
--Once the Bundestablishment repeals its Thoughtcrimes laws then perhaps I will believe that.--
++Why, the Austrians, French, Dutch, Swedes, Swiss, Australians and Canadians must then be worried as hell about being seen as Nazis, because the governments of all these countries apply laws against hate speech similar to those of the Federal Republic of Germany.++
<<Apparently so. That's why concentration camp propaganda is still being given for brainwashing in the schools.>>
Brainwashing takes propaganda, as Smith pointed out. The Nazi concentration camps, to Smith’s great annoyance, are not propaganda but historical facts.
++Could it be that the motivation behind such laws is concern about disturbances of public order and inter-ethnic violence that might result from the preaching of extremist propaganda to discontented segments of the population, rather than anything else?++
<<Governments exist for public safety or security reasons. That's what they're for. Which is not to say that everything they do is legitimate by any means.>>
I didn’t say that laws against hate speech are legitimate. I consider them to be not only wrong, but also stupid. But that doesn’t change the fact that the motivations behind them are not what Smith would like them to be.
++[Nazis are everywhere!]
They always were.++
<<Evil in a state of being, I guess. LOL.>>
I don’t believe in evil. But I know that the world is full of irrational imbecility.
++National Socialism happened to occur in Germany, but it could have occurred in any other country under similar conditions. Right now there are probably more Nazis in Arizona and California together than in the whole of Germany.++
<<I find it hard to believe that the conditions would ever be the same.>>
Neither do I.
<<Defeat.>>
Agree.
<<Dismemberment.>>
Not exactly.
<<War Guilt.>>
Agree.
<<Yada yada yada.>>
What was that?
<<If so, we'll whip 'em good, we will! We won't be kind-hearted and soft like you Germans. That's why we'll win.>>
In the First World War, the Germans were no more and no less “kind-hearted and soft” than anybody else except Turkey. In the Second World War, on the other hand, the Nazis trumped all other belligerents in terms of cruelty, mayhem and massacre. And still they didn’t win …
++Do you master the lyrics of the Horst Wessel Lied in the meantime, old pal?++
<<I'm waiting for you to master the similarly-stirring refrains of the Internationale.>>
I can already sing it in Portuguese, thanks to the website Tovarich once pointed me to. Not that I particularly like the commies, but their music is definitely superior to that of Smith’s friends.
-
Scott Smith
- Member
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
- Location: Arizona
- Contact:
Propagating your facts (and little white lies)
The only ones that I don't like are from John Phillip Sousa or Lee Greenwood. Anyway, I'm sure that something better (and not a rap version) can be devised. This is the 21st century! No need to wave the bloody shirt.Not that I particularly like the commies, but their music is definitely superior to that of Smith’s friends.
American the Great
Love that picture Scott, although it turns your stomach. Would think you would not post it so much.
America is a great place, it even allows those that hate it to live here.
Oh and we were good, and they were bad. Pretty simple, they destroyed millions, we did not. Not hard to understand.
America is a great place, it even allows those that hate it to live here.
Oh and we were good, and they were bad. Pretty simple, they destroyed millions, we did not. Not hard to understand.
-
Scott Smith
- Member
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
- Location: Arizona
- Contact:
Proud to be an American...
Hi Caldric,
I like the Union 76 flag or the one with the 13 stars in a circle. With fifty stars it is just too "busy."
Americans, unfortunately, are a silly people, easily provoked. They could not see the WTC attack coming and their leaders are telling them what they want to hear in vacuous Churchillian poetics.
We shall fight them on the beaches. We shall fight them in the shopping malls. Yada yada yada. I don't see how any proud American cannot look in the mirror once in awhile. Not in disgust and self-pity like some Germans today over the past but right now, about the future that we can change today.
If I had all the answers it would be easy. But I don't. I'm just good at asking questions. But that is the beginning of any process of change. With some skill and insight it is possible to learn from the study of history. But be cautious about morality tales. It is the nature of moral philosophy to have an agenda, a means seeking to control the attitudes and mores of others.
If one cannot learn to develop a skeptical attitude he will simply be misled. But some prefer their blissful ignorance, warm beer and Must-See TV. For them the gadfly is the devil.
:evil: :evil:
I like the Union 76 flag or the one with the 13 stars in a circle. With fifty stars it is just too "busy."
Well, don't be ashamed for being a tragic victim of the American educational system. Yes, we have destroyed millions. In Vietnam alone we tried to bomb them into the Stone Age. We were told they attacked us. They did not. We have killed millions in Iraq from the blockade and we are doing so right now (numbers unknown) in Afghanistan.Oh and we were good, and they were bad. Pretty simple, they destroyed millions, we did not. Not hard to understand.
Americans, unfortunately, are a silly people, easily provoked. They could not see the WTC attack coming and their leaders are telling them what they want to hear in vacuous Churchillian poetics.
We shall fight them on the beaches. We shall fight them in the shopping malls. Yada yada yada. I don't see how any proud American cannot look in the mirror once in awhile. Not in disgust and self-pity like some Germans today over the past but right now, about the future that we can change today.
If I had all the answers it would be easy. But I don't. I'm just good at asking questions. But that is the beginning of any process of change. With some skill and insight it is possible to learn from the study of history. But be cautious about morality tales. It is the nature of moral philosophy to have an agenda, a means seeking to control the attitudes and mores of others.
If one cannot learn to develop a skeptical attitude he will simply be misled. But some prefer their blissful ignorance, warm beer and Must-See TV. For them the gadfly is the devil.
:evil: :evil: